Christian Horner
Discussion
MarkwG said:
Yeah, do some easy research to support your statement that it's not happening - 10 seconds work - https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/red-bull-not... - Dan Fallows (Aston Martin), Rob Marshall (McLaren), Lee Stevenson (Audi), Adrian Newey (unknown) and Jonathan Wheatley (Audi). So not just the canteen staff, there's always fluidity but that's above expectation, hence why it's being written about.
Absurd? No, fact. You're the one bleating about how irrelevant this all is, if it's that irrelevant why are you so bothered about it, & why are you still here? You're not the arbiter of what's important or otherwise: pulling the "I've followed F1 since Bruce Mclaren was in nappies" is pretty pathetic, it doesn't bless your opinion with any more rights than anyone elses.
Show me where I said it isn't happening. YOU said if I followed F1, I was just demonstrating for how long I have followed F1. It isn't relevant. Absurd? No, fact. You're the one bleating about how irrelevant this all is, if it's that irrelevant why are you so bothered about it, & why are you still here? You're not the arbiter of what's important or otherwise: pulling the "I've followed F1 since Bruce Mclaren was in nappies" is pretty pathetic, it doesn't bless your opinion with any more rights than anyone elses.
You seem to be very angry. Perhaps take some time away from the Internet?
Victor.Lee said:
lauda said:
Two issues with that statement. ‘Horner’ and ‘claimed’. So it’s probably horses
t.
If it was false then can be 100% sure Toto would have refuted it publicly. He did not, so I tend to believe CH in that he did poach a lot of Merc staff recently. t. jm doc said:
Victor.Lee said:
lauda said:
Two issues with that statement. ‘Horner’ and ‘claimed’. So it’s probably horsest.
If it was false then can be 100% sure Toto would have refuted it publicly. He did not, so I tend to believe CH in that he did poach a lot of Merc staff recently. t. Your view trying to compare both situations here is flimsy, showing clear prejudice. But can't expect anyone these days to be open minded and want facts, everyone these days jumps to conclusions without verified evidence and happy to join in on something like cancel culture.
The messages might be accurate, they might be partially false, or incomplete or lacking any context. Obviously what was put out does not show CH in anyway good, and I tend to think they are at least partially real. But events suggest that the PA has been dishonest and also I think the messages were very carefully selected to show CH as bad and the PA as 100% innocent... meaning missing any context where she was initiating things and happily consenting. But we don't really know the facts, unless it goes to an ET, which I really hope it does.
CH is the boss and he also needs to uphold company policy of confidentiality of what is being internally investigated. He is very limited in what he can legally say publicly.
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 12:47
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 12:53
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 12:55
PhilAsia said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
PhilAsia said:
Except the constant disinterested bashing away at the keyboard. 
And who made the rules on who could post?Victor.Lee said:
CH is the boss and he also needs to uphold company policy of confidentiality of what is being internally investigated. He is very limited in what he can legally say publicly.
But fine to say he had been exonerated by a KC? I see...You see, the rules are simple, you either keep quiet, or you answer... If you choose to answer one point and not another, well....
Jasandjules said:
No it really isn't. You either keep everything quiet or you don't. Because you are talking about possible litigation coming next.
LMAO... it is 100% fine to state the outcome of an independent KC investigation. It is the outcome, without any details. This was not some internal investigation done by some normal RB employee, it was done by an outside legal expert. And Red Bull themselves publicly stated after the KC investigation that the PA's complaint was dismissed after the KC found no / not enough merit to her complaint. Are you saying that both CH and Red Bull Austria management have broken a law by revealing the KC verdict and can be sued by the PA for merely stating the KC result?????
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 14:34
Victor.Lee said:
LMAO... it is 100% fine to state the outcome of an independent KC investigation. It is the outcome, without any details. This was not some internal investigation done by some normal RB employee, it was done by an outside legal expert.
And Red Bull themselves publicly stated after the KC investigation that the PA's complaint was dismissed after the KC found no / not enough merit to her complaint. Are you saying that both CH and Red Bull Austria management have broken a law by revealing the KC verdict and can be sued by the PA for merely stating the KC result?????
You don't seem hugely bright. Where on earth do you take from my position that I think the law has been broken? And Red Bull themselves publicly stated after the KC investigation that the PA's complaint was dismissed after the KC found no / not enough merit to her complaint. Are you saying that both CH and Red Bull Austria management have broken a law by revealing the KC verdict and can be sued by the PA for merely stating the KC result?????
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 14:34
Re-read what I wrote again, this time trying to actually understand instead of jumping to a conclusion based upon a desire to defend the indefensible.
Jasandjules said:
vaud said:
It's fine to state the outcome of an investigation while protecting all details.
No it really isn't. You either keep everything quiet or you don't. Because you are talking about possible litigation coming next.Jasandjules said:
You don't seem hugely bright. Where on earth do you take from my position that I think the law has been broken?
Re-read what I wrote again, this time trying to actually understand instead of jumping to a conclusion based upon a desire to defend the indefensible.
You don't seem to understand what you are talking about or even your own view properly. If you don't think any law is being broken then there is no reason not to be able to reveal the OUTCOME ONLY of the KC investigation. Re-read what I wrote again, this time trying to actually understand instead of jumping to a conclusion based upon a desire to defend the indefensible.
I can't explain it simpler to your level, because I can't go that low, sorry.
Victor.Lee said:
You don't seem to understand what you are talking about or even your own view properly. If you don't think any law is being broken then there is no reason not to be able to reveal the OUTCOME ONLY of the KC investigation.
I can't explain it simpler to your level, because I can't go that low, sorry.
Let me try again for those hard of comprehension. I can't explain it simpler to your level, because I can't go that low, sorry.
You can not pick and choose what aspects of an investigation you answer. You either keep quiet, or address it.
What do you think one of the cross examination questions would be of Mr Horner in respect of the Whatsapp messages?
Jasandjules said:
Let me try again for those hard of comprehension.
You can not pick and choose what aspects of an investigation you answer. You either keep quiet, or address it.
What do you think one of the cross examination questions would be of Mr Horner in respect of the Whatsapp messages?
Awww so cute you think that. you are funny. You can not pick and choose what aspects of an investigation you answer. You either keep quiet, or address it.
What do you think one of the cross examination questions would be of Mr Horner in respect of the Whatsapp messages?
Jasandjules said:
Yes and I try to be even when cross examining witnesses on the stand.
But do tell us what you think one of the lines of questioning will be..
Lines of questioning by the KC to CH are not relevant to my statement. I am not talking about details of the investigation, I am talking ONLY of the OUTCOME. But do tell us what you think one of the lines of questioning will be..
Your view in binary.
1. CH address everything publicly and is open to reveal details of a confidential company and KC investigation. That would be violating multiple company policies, laws and probably NDA's.
OR
2. He says nothing at all, even when a KC decision is made, he says he can't say even what the outcome was. Imagine this scenario for a moment, the media would have a massive frenzy over why he can't even simply reveal the outcome and would ASSUME that the ONLY reason is because the KC found for the PA. So in this scenario even if both of the KC's found for CH as they did, he could not say the outcome and just let the media circus drag stating he is guilty UNTIL the ET, which could be years away? Or at what point is it acceptable to reveal the OUTCOME of the KC investigation?
Not a binary situation. State the result, which was an investigation by an outside, professional expert KC, a trusted position and authority to investigate such a matter. Then if the PA is unhappy, as she is, then go the route of the ET.
Imagine a person accused of something they are not guilty of. You are saying they either reveal everything and comment on everything like an open book (almost certain to break laws and NDA's) or say absolutely nothing and let the media vilify and cancel them even though they are not guilty and an independent investigation found no merit to the initial complaint.
Simple, revealing the OUTCOME of the KC investigation is perfectly fine. If not, then both Red Bull Austria and CH would have said nothing. They have huge teams of highly paid lawyers advising them. Much more skilled and better paid than you I assume.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff